TARASOFF DEFENDANTS - SOCIAL-JUSTICE OR ETHICAL DECAY

In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California that a duty to protect arises when a psyc hotherapist's patient poses a serious danger of physical harm to an id entifiable third party. Discharging this duty by the issuance of a war ning breaches the confidentiality of the psychotherapist-patient relat ionship. However, the potential benefit to society offsets the possibl e harm caused by the breach of confidentiality. Until recently, such w arnings have served little purpose outside of possibly preventing harm . However, the cumulative effect of three recent California Supreme Co urt cases has been to permit the use of these confidentiality breaches in criminal proceedings to fulfill prosecutorial goals. Nonetheless, the cost of achieving social justice may be at the expense of other im portant ethical values for both the psychotherapeutic professions and society in general.